A false dilemma, false dichotomy, false binary or black and white thinking, is the logical fallacy of placing limited options onto a concept when in fact there are more solutions than the argument presents. As an example, the idea that all Muslims are terrorists is a false binary, stating that 100% of Muslims are terrorists (1) and 0% of Muslims are not terrorists (0) and ignoring the incredible complexity that Muslims as a social demographic contain. (This is purely an example and not meant to be a topical point)
As biological creatures, we're often at the mercy of our subconscious. Black and white thinking is a result of the brains tendency to take the path of least resistance; the brain loves to neatly package things for easy digestion. The problem with this is that, with the exception of some hard sciences, almost NOTHING is a true binary when observed with enough vigor. Even scientists place a probability that often sits at 99.9% for concepts we consider "true", because everything is subject to change.
So why is this important and how does it relate to the common interests on this site?
The primary reason to keep this concept in mind is simply to improve your thinking and therefore your choices. That's it. I want to live this life to the best of my ability and that requires making choices. When there are choices, you must pick the best path. In order to do that, you need to sharpen your thinking in order understand which path is the best.
The information on this site is incredible and has transformed my life for the better. That said, everything with nuance needs to be considered as such. There are a lot of posts that explicitly and incorrectly state concepts as false binaries. A lot of the advice given here takes the same form. When I read statements like "always next her after two flakes" or "always wait three days", I feel slightly annoyed at the way this information is presented because it is not clear why you do these things and therefore ignores the broader context. We need to be more detail oriented with the explanations of a generalization so that we teach people how to assess a situation and act based on concepts, not explicitly state the rules.
For clarities sake, I want to state that I am not making a "not all women are like that" argument. In general, most people have very predictable tendencies.
These hard line rules, in my experience, are actually NOT good game. Good game, is learning the signals and responding with the best possible input. (phrasing!) Generally, nexting a woman after two flakes is the correct choice. Sometimes it is not. But we need to make that choice based on the broader context of your own personal goals and the rest of the interactions with the woman in question. So a better way to present this information would be to explain why you are suggesting to next this woman. She has shown very little interest - next her. She has failed to suggest an alternative time - next her. Do not next her simply because she flaked twice. This fails spectacularly with the incredible nuance of human interaction.
I think here is a good spot to add a caveat. If you're new to "game", haven't internalized concepts, and are still struggling to find your feet with women, you should use the false binaries simply out of pragmatic necessity. It's a learning experience and if you don't grasp the basic concepts, you will not be able to understand the broader context. But I do encourage you to ask for specifics if you are struggling to understand why someone, or a piece of information, is suggesting you act a certain way.
This brings me to my final important point. Generalizations are, for the most part, an acceptable form of logical argument. It's tempting to say that a generalization is a false binary, but it is simply stating something similar to scientific probability. "Women have wider hips" is an example of a generalization that is statistically true most of the time. It is useful to change your language from "all" to "in general" for clarities sake, however, I do not consider it a requirement. Most people should understand that a lot of what is said in every day life is implicitly a generalization. That is to say, statistically true enough to shorthand the concept.
If you have any input or suggestions, please let me know as I have a tendency to explain things very poorly.
As biological creatures, we're often at the mercy of our subconscious. Black and white thinking is a result of the brains tendency to take the path of least resistance; the brain loves to neatly package things for easy digestion. The problem with this is that, with the exception of some hard sciences, almost NOTHING is a true binary when observed with enough vigor. Even scientists place a probability that often sits at 99.9% for concepts we consider "true", because everything is subject to change.
So why is this important and how does it relate to the common interests on this site?
The primary reason to keep this concept in mind is simply to improve your thinking and therefore your choices. That's it. I want to live this life to the best of my ability and that requires making choices. When there are choices, you must pick the best path. In order to do that, you need to sharpen your thinking in order understand which path is the best.
The information on this site is incredible and has transformed my life for the better. That said, everything with nuance needs to be considered as such. There are a lot of posts that explicitly and incorrectly state concepts as false binaries. A lot of the advice given here takes the same form. When I read statements like "always next her after two flakes" or "always wait three days", I feel slightly annoyed at the way this information is presented because it is not clear why you do these things and therefore ignores the broader context. We need to be more detail oriented with the explanations of a generalization so that we teach people how to assess a situation and act based on concepts, not explicitly state the rules.
For clarities sake, I want to state that I am not making a "not all women are like that" argument. In general, most people have very predictable tendencies.
These hard line rules, in my experience, are actually NOT good game. Good game, is learning the signals and responding with the best possible input. (phrasing!) Generally, nexting a woman after two flakes is the correct choice. Sometimes it is not. But we need to make that choice based on the broader context of your own personal goals and the rest of the interactions with the woman in question. So a better way to present this information would be to explain why you are suggesting to next this woman. She has shown very little interest - next her. She has failed to suggest an alternative time - next her. Do not next her simply because she flaked twice. This fails spectacularly with the incredible nuance of human interaction.
I think here is a good spot to add a caveat. If you're new to "game", haven't internalized concepts, and are still struggling to find your feet with women, you should use the false binaries simply out of pragmatic necessity. It's a learning experience and if you don't grasp the basic concepts, you will not be able to understand the broader context. But I do encourage you to ask for specifics if you are struggling to understand why someone, or a piece of information, is suggesting you act a certain way.
This brings me to my final important point. Generalizations are, for the most part, an acceptable form of logical argument. It's tempting to say that a generalization is a false binary, but it is simply stating something similar to scientific probability. "Women have wider hips" is an example of a generalization that is statistically true most of the time. It is useful to change your language from "all" to "in general" for clarities sake, however, I do not consider it a requirement. Most people should understand that a lot of what is said in every day life is implicitly a generalization. That is to say, statistically true enough to shorthand the concept.
If you have any input or suggestions, please let me know as I have a tendency to explain things very poorly.